The following summaries reflect the status of the pending legislation as of June 6, 2025. Future amendments are expected. Important upcoming dates in the legislative process include:

• September 12, 2025 – final date for the Legislature to pass bills.
• September 12, 2025 – final date for the Legislature to pass bills.
• October 12, 2025 – final date for the Governor to sign or veto passed bills.

PROJECT VESTING & PROJECT APPROVAL DEADLINES

• SB 489 (Arreguin). As currently proposed, this bill would amend the definition of “development project” for purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act to include a “housing development project” as that term is defined in the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) (HAA). The bill would additionally require that all local agency formation commissions establish written policies and procedures to encourage planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns and post those policies and procedures online.
• AB 1007 (Rubio). As currently proposed, this bill would reduce the deadline from 90 days to 45 days for a responsible agency (other than the California Coastal Commission) to approve or disapprove a housing development project (as defined) for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
• AB 1276 (Cabrillo). As currently proposed, this bill would extend existing vesting provisions under SB 330 to apply to “rules, regulations, determinations, and other requirements adopted or implemented by other public agencies” (as defined in Gov. Code § 65932) and post-entitlement permit standards. This bill would also require use of a “reasonable person” standard by those agencies when determining whether a housing development project is compliant.

UNIFORM APPLICATIONS & COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION REQUIREMENTS

• AB 1294 (Haney). As currently proposed, this bill would require that an application for a housing entitlement be deemed complete upon the provision of specified information and requires HCD to adopt a standard housing development project application form that every local agency is required to accept by October 1, 2026. It would additionally set forth associated restrictions on a local agency’s discretion to require additional information from or actions by the developer and establish it as a violation under the HAA in any instance where the local agency attempts to do so. As currently proposed, a local agency may not require any of the following as a precondition to a determination that a housing development application is complete:
  • Any requirement for preapplication submissions, approvals, reviews, meetings, consultations, public outreach, notices, or any other preapplication requirements or any application submittal appointment, except as provided.
  • Any approval or determination by any official, body, department, or subdepartment of the local agency.
  • Any expert studies or plans (traffic studies, arborist reports, noise studies, air quality impact studies, stormwater management plan etc.), except as provided.
  • Any information solely required for the purpose of reviewing an application for or issuing a permit for a post-entitlement phase permit.
  • A listing or depiction of the local agency’s development standards.
  • Any requirement that limits the architects, engineers, or other consultants or professionals the applicant may use, except as required by state law.
  • Any requirement that the proposed project be consistent with local development standards or that the applicant demonstrate such consistency.
• AB 920 (Cavallo). As currently proposed, this bill would require any city or county with a population of 150,000 or more to develop an online portal for housing development project applications and require that the portal allow for tracking of application status.

REDEVELOPMENT OF UNDERUTILIZED COMMERCIAL SITES

• AB 1050 (Shultz). Existing law permits the owner of an affordable housing development to remove any covenant, condition, restriction, or private limit on the use of that land. As currently proposed, this bill would expand the existing process to land that has a condition, restriction, or private limit requiring the property to be used exclusively for commercial purposes. Expansion of this process is intended to facilitate development of residential uses on such sites.

COST SAVINGS

• AB 782 (Quirk-Silva). As currently proposed, this bill would prohibit a local agency from requiring the furnishing of additional security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement related to an improvement that will be privately owned and maintained, and from conditioning a subdivision or other approval on such security. The bill would likewise prohibit the Real Estate Commissioner, in issuing a public report for a residential development, from requiring the furnishing of a security in connection with the performance of any act or agreement related to an improvement that will be publicly owned and maintained, if the Real Estate Commissioner has determined that sufficient security has been furnished to a local agency for the same improvement.
• AB 557 (McKinnor). As currently proposed, this bill would require plans or specifications of factory-built housing to be approved by serial number and would authorize the approved plans or specifications to be used in subsequent development projects unless building standards relating to factory-built housing are modified, as specified. It would additionally limit HCD and design approval agencies to review only portions of a plan that have not previously been approved.

STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS

• AB 357 (Alvarez). As currently proposed, this bill would specify that a complete coastal development permit application for a student housing project or faculty or staff housing project shall be approved or denied by the California Coastal Commission within 90 days of submittal. An extension is permitted if a university proposes substantial changes that may involve new or increased identified significant effects or there are changes in environmental circumstances due to natural disasters, including but not limited to floods, earthquakes, mudslides, sea level rise, coastal erosion, and wildland or urban fires.

GREEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

• AB 945 (Fong). This bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development and the Assembly Committee on Local Government on March 10, 2025, but failed to advance out of committee. AB 945 would have amended the State Density Bonus Law to incentivize green housing development projects (as defined). AB 945 would have provided for additional State Density Bonus Law incentives/concessions (as specified) and would have eliminated parking requirements altogether for qualifying green housing development projects.

“BUILDER’S REMEDY” PROJECTS

• SB 457 (Becker and Stern). This bill failed to advance by a vote of 1 to 2 at the Senate Housing Committee meeting on April 29, 2025, but reconsideration was granted. SB 457 would have required that a complete (full) development application (pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943) be filed for a Builder's Remedy project to vest. Under existing law (AB 1886), Housing Element compliance status is determined at the time the SB 330 preliminary application (pursuant to Gov. Code § 65941.1) is submitted for the Builder’s Remedy project. SB 457 would have also provided that a Housing Element shall be considered substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law on the date when the governing body of the local jurisdiction adopts the Housing Element, provided that specified requirements are met. Under existing law (AB 1886), a Housing Element will be deemed substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law when: (i) the Housing Element has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and; (ii) the local jurisdiction has received an affirmative determination of substantial compliance from HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction.
• AB 650 (Papan and Pacheco). As originally proposed, AB 650 would have provided that notwithstanding Gov. Code § 65589.5, the Builder’s Remedy would no longer be available during either of the following periods: (i) the duration of HCD’s review of the revised Housing Element (where applicable) or; (ii) 90 days from the date that HCD notifies the local jurisdiction of additional deficiencies not previously identified by HCD in response to the prior submission of the Housing Element. This would have thwarted the vesting of Builder’s Remedy projects during existing windows of opportunity under existing law. AB 650 was subsequently amended to remove the foregoing provisions and now focuses on State Housing Element Law and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process